It has become apparent after observing the new RP forum, the complaints of several players regarding his actions, and my own banning from the forum that Weylin vi Cron is not suitably mature enough, nor capable of exercising rational judgement to moderate an IC forum. To this end, I ask the Administration counsel Weylin on his heavy handed tactics, and his attempts as a player of this game to impose his own viewpoints on what is acceptable diction for In Character.

I draw your attention to the rules strictly imposed by Weylin for the RP forum, which seem to have been developed by himself in order to impose his own views of what the RP forum should be. In this particular instance, he has decreed that any use of the word "faction" is in breach of the rules. While I can understand his desire to cut down on our character's use of the word when describing Empires and corporations; it is abundantly clear that Weylin lacks the mental agility to differentiate between the use of the word to describe a organisation within the context of the SWC's rules and lexicon, and the IC use in-line with the original definition of the word to describe a sub-set of an organisation or group.

Lacking this ability, he has edited multiple people's posts in order to impose his own agenda and personal perceptions on acceptability for SWC roleplay. We can all appreciate the work he does in moderating forums in this game, however there are lines that moderators should not cross, and Weylin seems unable to determine where those lines are.

More prominent however is that I do not believe it is the role of a moderator to be editing out every mention of words we also use in an OOC context for SWC. Instead the moderator's role should be one of ensuring that posts remain IC, PG-13, and relevant to the discussion at hand. In my opinion, this obsessive behaviour should be addressed by the Administration as it only stifles the willingness of players to engage in RP within SWC's forums when it is ruthlessly overseen by what is effectively a personal and fundamentalist approach to moderation in opposition to the more core and vital aspect of community expectations and standards for RP.

____________

"Seele's Law: As a New Republic Senate discussion grows longer, the probability of comparison involving the Galactic Empire approaches 1."

I was asked to mod because of my "heavy handed tactics." I also ran the rules I developed (which are mostly modified from the Meeting Hall Rules that were created YEARS ago) by several ASims who were happy with them.

For someone who banned someone from SWC for calling you "fat", you seem to enjoy attacking others.

If anyone has an issue, they can come to me calmly and rationally and discuss any problems they may have. Violating MORE rules to attack me will, of course, result in a ban. As you have experienced.

A poorly thought out ad hominem retort. Even as an Admin, I didn't close threads anywhere near as much as you are willing to, and very rarely ever edited someone's post; in almost all cases it was only ever to remove swearing.

To address the sidebar attack which has absolutely nothing to do with this situation at all, I didn't ban someone for calling me fat. I, as an Admin, banned someone for undertaking a personal attack which had nothing to do with my performance as an Admin at all. Now I want people to pay close attention to this, because it's important and this whole situation has been perpetuated by people who aren't very well informed: It wasn't that he called me fat, it was that he said that my physical weight was resulting in what he considered to be poor performance as an Admin. Here are the logs of that day in order to enlighten some people who like to try and keep attacking me over this issue:

[Seele] Suffice to say, you can rest assured you and Myn aren't the only ones out there with the name Kuat.
[Seele] Nor were you the first.
[Dionaea_Kuat] Fine. Then why weren't we required permission from the first Kuat?
[Seele] Probably an oversight, or potentially another Admin who understands the handle rules a little more clearly.
[Dionaea_Kuat] Oh, ok.
[Seele] We should probably just get rid of the poorly worded and misinterpreted rule regarding family names.
[Dionaea_Kuat] We should.
[Seele] But in the meantime, bigger fish to fry.
[Dionaea_Kuat] Right.
[Dionaea_Kuat] Thank you Magnificent Seele, Master of the Known Universe. It was a pleasure to be bathed by your infinite knowledge and wisdom. I hope this conversation served to get your daily ego-boost from SWC. You are probably fat IRL.
[Dionaea_Kuat] What is this, China? I've been banned from calling you fat?
[Seele] No, not for just calling me fat.
[Dionaea_Kuat] For what then?
[Seele] Because I'll be the first one to tell you I am fat IRL.
[Dionaea_Kuat] Why have I been banned?
[Seele] It was for your intentionally and explicit attempt to make fun of an Admin for an OOC physical trait.
[Dionaea_Kuat] So?
[Seele] It's called harrassment.
[Seele] And I'm not putting up with it just because you're indignant you weren't the first character in the game with the name "Kuat".
[Dionaea_Kuat] I can call you fat if I want too, there's no rule against that. It's like banning someone from calling an admin incompetent.
[Seele] Actually, there IS a rule against that.
[Seele] And it's not that you called me fat, it was your intent in calling me fat.

So please, if you're a moderator, you should at least understand a criticism of your performance versus an OOC attack that bears no relation to said performance. Gripes about someone's performance can be legitimate, and are often considered an attack by the recipient (no one likes being told they're not doing a good job); but it is never okay to criticise someone for a physical trait in this kind of situation such as weight, hair colour, or ethnicity that have no bearing on the ability of a person to undertake a particular task.

Once again, I ask the admins to correct the kind of behavior we have repeatedly seen from Weylin. It is not appropriate, it is extreme, and it is not conducive to what we are trying to accomplish with these forums.

EDIT: Fixed IRC names which disappeared due to brackets.

Edited By: Seele on Year 14 Day 337 2:10____________

"Seele's Law: As a New Republic Senate discussion grows longer, the probability of comparison involving the Galactic Empire approaches 1."

Follow the rules. If one cannot bring his or herself to follow simple rules, that person will end up banned. As you have experienced.

If you had an issue, the proper thing to do was to hit the DM icon and send me a calm, rational message and make your case. The wrong thing to do is to make an Out Of Character tirade in an attempt to attack me.

That is why you are banned.

ASims approved my rules. ASims approached me to moderate and I said I would moderate strictly. I was then made the moderator.

I've been lenient so far. You are my first (and hopefully only) ban there and I've yet to need to lock any threads.

“Weylin lacks the mental agility”

By your admittance, this is harassment. Yet I am not calling for you being banned from the game.

You broke the rules. You now face the consequences for not approaching me like an adult and instead coming here to complain for the public rules being enforced. I get it. That doesn't make it the correct thing to do, mind you, but I understand it.

I posted it years ago (year 7) and I stand by it: I hate needing to be tough, but it's the only way people listen around here.

Is it your contention that mental aptitude is not a quality we can and should use to measure the performance of forum moderators? It is your argument that a person's level of intelligence doesn't have an impact on their ability to undertake critical thinking, assess a situation against a set of criteria, and then make a judgement regarding what response, if any, should be applied in a given situation?

If you think it is a quality we should use to assess performance, then your mental agility is related to your specific performance as a moderator of a forum. If you think it doesn't, then that alone speaks volumes regarding your approach to the job.

As I tried to explain in my previous post, there is a difference between factors that affect job performance, and those which do not. For example, your weight does not have a bearing on your ability to successfully and fairly moderate a forum, but your intelligence and maturity certainly do. That is what I am calling into question, and legitimately so.

As for your moderating style, it is much to be desired. I certainly wouldn't want your job as it's a crappy job to have, but on the flip side my appreciation for the work does not nullify a fundamentalist approach that lacks common sense and respect for the community's expectations. I honestly do not care if an ASim approved your rules, it does not make them appropriate, reasonable, or fair just because someone else approved them.

____________

"Seele's Law: As a New Republic Senate discussion grows longer, the probability of comparison involving the Galactic Empire approaches 1."

Nothing regarding the behaviour or comments from other players suggest to me that you, as a moderator, are going to reasonable. Especially not after a 2 week forum ban for simply rebuking you once. I do not have the confidence, based on your own on the job performance, that you are capable of dealing with this situation maturely and fairly.

I didn't break the rules intentionally as you claim, as I hadn't even read the rules before posting. My post was completely IC, appropriate, relevant, respectful, and used the word "faction" in the correct sense within the context. Yet somehow you can't exercise judgement regarding how the word was used and are using blanket rulings. It was only after you had edited my post that I went to read the rules and saw how ludicrous they actually were, and then more worringly how they were being applied in such draconian ways without the exercise of natural judgement and justice.

As for approaching the Admins, the answer is simple: If you don't agree with the rules of the game, then you approach the admins. If you think someone on SWC's team is not performing well in their role, then you approach the admins. This isn't about me thinking I'm above the rules. I disagree with the rules of that forum as I think they are asinine, short-sighted, and then the moderator utilises absolutes in an unreasonable way demonstrating a lack of reasoning skills. The same issues I've had with heavy handed ASims in the past who blindly applied the rules without the ability to exercise proper judgement and natural justice.

Honestly, you have banned a non-threatening, non-offensive, common word of the English language from ever being used IC, and you're wondering why I don't have confidence in you being able to handle this situation rationally? Why I don't want to speak with you about the ban after you banned me for one post telling you to stop being a fool and calm down on editing the word out?

I haven't asked for you to be removed from your role as moderator. I have asked the Admins to counsel you regarding the inability or unwillingness (whichever it is) to exercise decent judgement, and meet reasonable community expectations for moderator behavior and performance. As you keep saying, this is your intentional and inflexible approach to moderating, and that is setting off alarm bells for me, and that is why I am seeking the intervention of the Administration in the way in which you are approaching your role in this game's community.

____________

"Seele's Law: As a New Republic Senate discussion grows longer, the probability of comparison involving the Galactic Empire approaches 1."

Usually I don't butt into these sorts of things, but there were some things I felt I should point out.

WvC, I think Seele does have a point about the usage of the word faction, and that it might be a nice idea to accept the use of the word 'faction' in certain context. A two week ban for this might have been a little excessive for this.

Seele, I also think that WvC would have been more receptive of this if you had sent him a DM instead of calling him out in the thread over it.

Now, another point:

“Nothing regarding the behaviour or comments from other players suggest to me that you, as a moderator, are going to reasonable. Especially not after a 2 week forum ban for simply rebuking you once.

- Seele”

I saw the post you made before it was deleted. The post was deleted and you were banned because the post violated the rules because since was 100% OOC, not because you rebuked him and it damaged his ego or something like that.

“ 5) Out Of Character
Out of Character comments are only permitted within an In Character post, must not be greater than 1/4 the length of the In Character portion, and may not be insulting or an attack on another player or faction.

- Galactic Message Exchange Rules thread”

This does not seem to be an unreasonable rule, the intent behind it is to keep threads from being derailed or filled with ooc argument posts. It's not the purpose of that forum.

Now instead of going back and forth and continuing the argument about who is in the wrong and resorting to personal attacks, why not discuss the original issue in a civil manner?

The term "faction" was used regularly in Star Wars. I agree with Seele that is not a good reason to be banned. Not saying he is right in all he is stating above, but the rule that one can never say faction is moronic.

Xakic Jix, none of that is the word "faction" being used in Star Wars. That is the word faction being used in Out Of Character resources. If you choose to notice, those "factions"? They're all subsets of a government or something greater. It is commonly used as a word to describe elements in fantasy or a game, yes. Usually, however, only in the context of menus or instruction guides and very rarely in actual in-universe speech.

So far I've corrected people when talking about faction leadership (when referring to government leadership), wishing a faction luck (when talking about a government), talking about factions joining an alliance (they're not factions within the alliance until after they join it), etc. I bet most can't even tell where it was edited out if it hasn't been pointed out to them.n They were, however, all using the knee-jerk reaction of calling everything a faction.

If I could award CPs, I would so hold a 'word of the day' thing and award people for expanding their lexicon. If you can't tell 'faction' is removed, was it necessary for it to be used in the first place?

Anyway, galaxy would be a perfectly usable IC word, the term refers to the summation of all the sectors/systems in the entire game/universe/galaxy. Faction, however, depending on the context is an OOC term used to refer to a group in the game, or IC if referring to a subgroup within a government or company or alliance. Its pretty clear what context people are using it in, and I think it is good that we hold people to using the proper IC terminology. As for the post in question, I didn't see the previous version, but I know I personally don't mind if someone edits my post to make it look better as long as the meaning isn't changed.

The word faction has been used in Star Wars books. Weylin is saying that it is not a word that should be used in his forum based on the fact that it is an OOC word, I am stating that so is the word galaxy. I am now more inclined to agree with Seele on this, I mean where does it end? If we can not use the word faction when talking about a faction, can we say group, crew, company etc with out getting banned? I understand it is an IC forum but not allowing the word "Faction" as the #1 rule is kind of ridiculous, when like I have stated before that it has been used in the books.

WvC: The only problem I have with the way you handled the situation is that you're taking Defence of your prerogative way too far. If Seele's 2nd post that you banned him for was OOC, you were well within your rights to institute the temp ban. That thread was not the place for an OOC fight about the Rules.

However, Seele and others are correct about the legitimacy of the word "faction" in describing groups that are not solely "OOC-Term" Factions. As long as it's used correctly, you shouldn't blindly replace it in people's posts. You're wrong about the word "faction" being completely verboten from IC, and you need to stop pushing your positions further into extremes to try to salvage that very MINOR mistake of yours (and the misinterpretable wording of the RP Rules). I'm super psyched that you're a very active and strict-minded moderator, as it will take a keen eye and deft hand to keep those highly-heated IC "debates" in check. However, you have an obligation to be proper in your definition and enforcement of the rules, and you need to acknowledge when you're wrong and take appropriate action.

Your last argument is highly demonstrative of "Defensiveness" motivating your positions in this thread, rather than logic and reason. It was a very weak argument from Xakic, but you decided to impose an ill-considered "test" for an IC word instead of dismissing the weak argument as invalid on its face. The test for legitimate IC use of a word was never limited to "Was it used ICly in Star Wars?". Your implied further reason of "if you don't miss it, it wasn't necessary" is not a justification for using the "no 'faction' word' rule to try to have people expand their vocabulary.

Understand that editing people's posts for content can be viewed as a personal violation and an insult. Whether that's them being overly sensitive is beside the point. Where the edit is for a technical reason based on a poorly-formatted rule, a change to the Rule is in order. That's where Seele's outrage comes from, at its base; the appearance of being accused of being wrong on the internet when he isn't.

I don't know what exactly you changed in Seele's post, but I didn't find any instances of "government, nation, corporation, company" or any of the synonyms on thesaurus.com as replacing a word, which a Minor edit to replace the word "faction" as used incorrectly would leave. I think if you're going to go back and edit people's posts to enforce these minor rules, you need to actually point out the change in your Reasons, so at least some accountability can be maintained.

Seele: You're not going to get public support re the Ban on this one.

As a former Admin, you should know better than to start this kind of thing publicly, over such a minor altercation. You didn't read the forum rules (Ignorance of the Law is no excuse), broke them (apparently, and perhaps arguably), then after reading the rules, you purposely broke them again by writing an OOC post in the thread. As others mentioned, you could have easily just DMed Weylin and maybe the RP Director, they are the only people who really need to see this argument.

SWC has a history of using OOC terminology to refer to its "groups." MasterGroup, NFG (when we had 4 factions and the other "factions" were called NFGs, not the current meaning), CMG.. "faction" was specifically selected to at least sound a bit more IC, but in most IC contexts it isn't used in an IC manner at all. It can be a rather blurred line and in IC forums it's up to the moderator to decide where to draw that line. A blanket ban on the word "faction" is one way of ensuring it doesn't turn into this type of debate because this exact argument comes up constantly, from the GNS comments thread to discussions of RP posts.

He's within his rights to edit the word out of posts and ask people to stop using it if he doesn't think it should be used (which appears to have been his only initial action), and he's definitely within his rights to ban players for making completely OOC posts that violate the posted rules.

“) IC/OOC Separation
Learn it. Talking about characters instead of persons, saying "faction" when talking about corporations, police/security forces, governments, etc. will not be tolerated. It may result in an instant thread lock if it is noticed. If repeated by the same person, it may result in a ban from this area.

- GME Rules thread”

There is no reason you can't use the term in its intended form, just you can't use it to refer to a government or corporation or religious group where there is a better term for it IC. I like that, tbh. Its something small, but I think its a nice touch.

I just wanted to put in my 2 cents...I am sure no one really cares but here I go...

Now I've always considered my business as a faction. Why? Well thats the term that has been used for years, heck since the start of the game, to describe a business/government/etc in this game. I will always refer to my business as a Faction due to this. I think its a little silly to say that faction is not an IC word when its used throughout this entire game to describe a business.

Now due to this discussion I decided to look up what faction actually meant and found "a small, organized, dissenting group within a larger one, esp. in politics." Now this does not go for my faction...we are not a small group within a larger one, even tho THE GAME considers us as a faction and hence been known as a faction in this game. I've always thought of my business as a Faction due to the way the game is worded. I think if you want to ban the word faction from being used to describe a business in SWC then you would need to reword the entire Faction feature in the game and rename it to something that would better describe the businesses in the game.

I've also decided to look up Faction on the SWC Rules page and found "Factions are unions of players fighting or working for the same goal. They can be governments, outlaws, companies, etc." Now this sounds more like the Faction I own. Not a small group within a larger one. And this is how the word "Faction" has been adapted to the SWC game. You can find this rule at: Factions

I dont tell my friends "Hey you should come help me with my business." I tell them "Hey you should come help my faction" because this is the term EVERYONE is use to DUE to the game itself.

Again this is just my own point of view, I am not standing up/defending/attacking anyone.